memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Category talk:Locations
Locations/structures creation Mainly a super category, I seem to remember there being a few locations/structures that didn't fall into any of the other categories that would fall under this one. I think either name would work, with locations being slightly more inclusive. - 16:46, July 31, 2013 (UTC) :I'm not sure which hard to classify structures you have in mind, or if you hope to put these in one category together with the locations. But a general locations category would be very welcome, there's a bunch of interstellar locations where it isn't clear if they're planets, city's, stars, or even something else, which right now are quite clumsily put in the regions category. (examples: Ya'Seem, Micromius, Sybaron, Nagor,...) -- Capricorn (talk) 03:57, August 1, 2013 (UTC) ::Short term, if we're unclear, those should be moved into Category:Uncategorized articles. Longer term, I do like the idea of a "locations" category, and I was actually trying to work out what categories would fall under it (in addition to their current locations). -- sulfur (talk) 10:27, August 1, 2013 (UTC) One of the ones I was thinking about, Annandale, is already in the uncategorized category. The other is just in a pna category right now if I remember correctly. What I was thinking would count as a location would be something that is relatively stationary, so it would include things like stations, planets, systems, etc, which is why this would be a super-category. Using structures would just remove "natural" locations as I see it. - 03:27, August 2, 2013 (UTC) :(Incidently, I might have screwed up by placing a bunch of vague locations in the regions category in the last year or so. I distinctly remember being confronted with the question what to do with that kind of pages, and, searching for precedent, somewhere on some talk page reading the recommendation from someone somewhat authoritative to place them in the regions cat, where indeed I found a few such articles. Since then I've placed and moved a few more in that category. Can't seem to find that discussion again though, starting to wonder if I dreamt the whole thing.) :More to the point of this discussion, I'm still very confused about the structures category. In many cases it isn't even clear if something is for example a planet, which you'd place in locations, or a city, which I'm guessing you'd place in structures. Or would structures be more like buildings? I've recently thought about creating an article on the religious structure called a , and was very surprised that there didn't seem to be a category for architectural stuff or building types. Maybe stuff like that could be fitted into structures too. Though dunno, maybe that's not what you meant at all and I'm getting off topic. Do you have examples of articles you'd place in structures? -- Capricorn (talk) 22:32, August 2, 2013 (UTC) Structures would be for "single" structures, a complex of structures would be a location, as I see it at least. If both categories are created, structures would be in locations, at some level anyways. - 03:05, August 3, 2013 (UTC) :::If this is meant to be either/or, I think that "Locations" is the better choice. If both are up for suggestion, I'd like to first hear more about the intended scope of "Structures". It seems to be a little all over the place, because both "type articles" (like Bridge (structure)) as well as those for individual objects (like Golden Gate Bridge), as well as all different kinds of artificially created objects (from buildings, including starbases, to vehicles, perhaps even objects like Statue of Liberty) could be members of this category. In that case, we'd perhaps need to create a whole new category tree for this. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 16:08, August 3, 2013 (UTC) Actually, the issue with the Golden Gate Bridge was the reason I originally phrased this as one or the other, as I tend to see it as a location on to itself instead of a structure connecting two locations, though I think the latter would most likely be the category we use if both are created. I'm fine with working out a new category tree to include structures, since as I see it there's going to have to be some shake up in the category tree anyways if we create locations, as Category:Geography will at the very least have some overlap with it, if one isn't placed inside the other. - 16:51, August 3, 2013 (UTC) :::True, there's some overlap between the two - "structure objects", like Golden Gate Bridge, could be located in a "Structures" category as well as a "Locations" category. But Bridge (structure) would be a candidate for "Structures" but not for "Locations", while another article like Galactic core would be a "Location" but not a "Structure" (it already is categorized as Region, so that would become one of the "Location" subs). That means that, if we create both, we can't make either one a subcategory of the other, I think they would need to be the heads of more or less independent category trees. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:09, August 3, 2013 (UTC) It might be easier to have the structures category be for the actual objects themselves, and create an architecture category for the concepts, with the structures cat as a sub of it. Architecture could be placed in Category:Culture, which is where the article is now. - 17:31, August 3, 2013 (UTC) Took an initial stab at this, still needs works and input most likely. - 04:07, August 22, 2013 (UTC)